Pages

Monday, November 21, 2011

There's one thing I would really, really love to see under the tree this year -- under everyone's tree: Occupy the World.

For the first time in history, it seems that there might be enough momentum, enough communication, enough strength of individual convictions, and enough mass support to be able to have a world-wide, non-violent, revolution.

Taking the US as an example in this beautiful hope: imagine 2 or 3 million people showing up on the lawns of the US law-making machinery in Washington, D.C., issuing their declaration of independence and simply stating a fact: "Things are now going to change, we will not leave until we have the government that we want."

Far from mob rule, the 99 is intelligent, lucid, and a collection of THE overwhelming majority... regardless of old political parties. An enormous amount of discussion, insightful inspection, exploration of alternatives has been researched, written about, and promoted over the past 5 to 10 years, co-culminating in what we see around us today as the Occupy movement. I have the utmost faith in these thinkers (by which I mean everyone from Gar Alperovitz to my second cousins working in Detroit, MI automotive plants) and their (our!) ability to produce a new constitution that provides for the 99 fairly. Such a new system would stand in stark contrast to that of today's system: one that caters to policies driven by enormous, "legal" bribes or banking systems that continuously steal from the customers and shareholders, running off with the loot.

The 99 is saying it, and has been saying it for a while: "It's time for a change."

They've taken things further by showing an undeniable presence at the scenes of crimes (financial and governmental institutions). I say let's take the last logical step, and fix the problem: let's put a new system of government in place. Let's have radical, peaceful change. Let's do it with poise, grace, and while keeping the benefit of the entire planet foremost in our minds. Let's do it world-wide, and not stop until the job is done. Let's have a revolution.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

There's a lot that one could say about that title. In fact, it could be the title of a high-volume collaborative blog... That aside, here's the context for this post: books. Books and Reality. And data.
This post got so long that I now need to add a list of sections here, just to make it more accessible. My apologies :-/

Mini Table of Contents

Books

Books in the Sky

Yeah, I Know: Go Social

Human Data History

Reality Merges

Conclusion

Books
I have tons of books. Actual, physical books. Walls of them. Some I use all the time (reference). Some I read once a year (good books that support multiple reads). Others I've only read once, perhaps as far back as high school (when I started collecting). My bookshelves are like a random associative memory array: reading each title or the act of pulling one from the shelf brings back a flood of memories, relived experiences, sometimes actual sense perceptions. It's a powerfully visceral activity.

But that's just my books. When I'm at friends' homes or offices, I cannot keep my eyes off their bookshelves. It's an irresistible compulsion. I linger and browse, often past any semblance of socially acceptable time limits. My conversational replies experience a rapid exponential die-off -- in duration, gaps, and semantic value -- culminating in grunts and finally silence. (My favorite offices to visit so far? friend mathematicians/maths professors!)

Books in the Sky
Oddly, I love books in digital format. I never really got hung up on the bit about not having the paper entity in my hands (though I have turned a digital book reader over, expecting the next page... though that was deep in the plot of a Greg Egan novel!). Traveling as much as I do, I'm in heaven with ebooks. I feel like Superman, carrying around a library with me everywhere I go.

But when I passed a bookshelf the other day on my way out the door and fell under the spell of a book-memory flashback, I realized what was going away as I transitioned to virtual books. And the painful question arose: How am I going to nurture future layers of book-mulch and text-humus with this new æthereal, cloud-bound library I'm building?

How can I share with others, my stacks of books? How will I browse friends' books in their offices, asking about author X and title Y? How will we borrow from each other? What can be done to add this and related missing richness back into our lives once we adopt the virtual versions?

Light-emitting walls that can display titles from your Amazon account? Virtual over-lays visible with wearable/immersive computing accessories? Whatever we end up with, a gimmick isn't going to cut it. It will need to reflect the same depth of history that stacks of physical books have come to represent to us and the collective human psyche since we first started gathers works of the written word.

Yeah, I Know: Go Social
I'm hung up on books here, I admit it. But the same goes equally well for much of what we experience in online social media as well. Everyone's trying to make a buck on people chatting, playing games, reading, etc. Business as usual.

But the problem is that everyone coming up with their own little solution, one piece at a time. Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Last.fm, etc. "We socialize X." Wow. Good for you. Now, for every activity or group I'm interested in, I've got some tiny little corner of the internet that I need to pay attention to.
Right.

Maybe I'm just an online social idiot, but this isn't working for me. Too many places and pieces. The physical analogy would be me spending all day on the road, hitting all the social hot spots in the Colorado Front Range. Ain't gonna happen. Ever.

Human Data History
The social data scene is a big stick up my butt. I really don't like it there and I'd love to get rid of it. It's poorly engineered, primitive state makes me grumpy. I don't own a thousand hammers [1]; I don't want a thousand of anything that all do basically the same thing [2]. Most of us probably don't own hundreds of houses, either (for ourselves, that is). We keep most of our stuff in the same location or two.

Speaking of houses, let's talk about settlement. How did we choose where to set up camp, towns, etc.? Trade routes, availability of resources (direct physical presence or presence by virtue of trade routes). Are we doing that now on the internet? Are we looking at the analog to fertile valleys, productive rivers, and protected harbors? Whose priorities do we have in mind? As we set up virtual presences, are we in locations that benefit businesses? Or ourselves?

If we choose the latter, the businesses will come because the people are there. If we do it the other way around, we'll be looking for new virtual homes if the businesses close shop or change the rules too much.

Coming back to data (but on the same anthropological note), historically we've had distinct divisions of our data:

the secure location of our huts/houses/castles

what we presented about ourselves in adornment/fashion (public data)

what we could carry with us in bags/crates/vehicles

Because of their prevalence in our history, any attempt at realizing personal data in a virtual environment would do well to reflect on these. We're naturally already predisposed to such approaches; such divisions are things that anyone can intuitively grasp.

The problem is that we're all used to a single platform: our mutually agreed-upon reality. There's no such thing online yet. And if there were, who would own/run it? Monopolies are eventually overthrown. We hate them. So how do we get around this?

Reality Merges
This very naturally led to thoughts on digital lives in general. And this is more than just a question of usability or human-computer interaction. Rather, this is a question that borders on the metaphysical: how do we solve the problem of syncing divergent realities? Reality-reality interaction.

The problem shouldn't be minimalized by analogy: this isn't a "simple" matter of ensuring that the data in my address book on Google is the same as what's on my iPhone. My self-perception, many reminders of self-reflection, etc., take place as a result of various interactions I have with my surroundings: both real[3] and virtual. No problem. Except that the things that remind me are also things that others can see and interact with as well. Often, they will have associations that spark a neural cascade for them too.

I've had many conversations take place around objects in a shared environment where the name of the object was never mentioned, it was implicitly understood. When there's no shared object (or concept), we have to name the object, define it, share some basic associations, make sure that we're talking about the same thing, etc. Thats all prelude. Only with that done, can we have genuine communication take place around the given concept.

Now rinse and repeat for everything you want to talk about that revolves around or is at least related to something that exists virtually for you and isn't part of your shared, physical environment.
I can't imagine many useful general solutions to this. In fact, I can only imagine one (given our biological wiring): use what we know (in our bones) and overlay or augment our visual reality with another.

With augmented shared realities, there's no platform. You just need hardware that runs it and senses that can perceive it. Just like reality. At that point, we can start sharing what we want, allowing access to data about ourselves and what we like by dumping it into a shared perceptual space, regardless of the original data source. Merged.

Obviously, we're not there yet. We're going to need crazy improvements in mobile technology, storage, computer vision, etc. But once the technology catches up, I think we'll see some powerful needs being filled. And we might start coming out of the internet dark ages...

Conclusion
None of this is new; Pick up any number of books by Charlie Stross[4], and there's all sorts of fun to be had by exploring his ideas. But the point of this post wasn't to be new. While we're all busy enjoying the latest fad in social media, I think it's important we think about where the progressive succession of fads is taking us. At each point, there's a natural next step (more accurately, set of possible next steps). Let's look more than just one in front of us and let's not forget what our biology has made us. We may not be able to engineer truly wise decisions about our future, or even make our lives better/more efficient. But it would be nice if we could at least not make things worse :-)

Footnotes
[1] I think I have three, actually.
[2] This is one of the reasons I'm a big fan of http://ping.fm.
[3] Here I mean "real" in the "conventional" (shared) reality sense of Mahdyamikas. Ultimate reality... well, that's a topic for an entirely different sort of post...
[4] Check out his Amazon page: http://www.amazon.com/Charles-Stross/e/B001H6IW0Q/. Accelerando is probably his most praised book (and likely my favorite), but the ideas touched on in this blog post are explored in other works of his, most notably Glasshouse and Halting State.

More than another (excellent) addition to the tx family, txStatsD will provide folks with the luxury of collecting stats using a Python server without having to write any blocking code :-) Sidnei also implemented a graphite protocol and client factory for passing the messages along.

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

A few years ago, I wrote a post about the Future of Personal Data as a result of all the ultra large-scale systems reading and exploration I was doing. Google was foremost in my mind when writing that, but Apple has since come into the spotlight here as well.

Recently, Matt Zimmerman has decided to leave Canonical and join forces with Singly, an exciting startup company focused on secure user data storage and the socialization of (and development around) that data. In this blog post, the following core values were given about the software underlying Singly:

I own my personal data

I want my data to be useful to me

I make the decisions to protect or share my

I would like to see the following added:

I make the decisions on how my data is used

If my data is sold, I should get a return for this

This is not petulance speaking :-) This comes from a historical perspective on social and economic fairness. Witness the changes in individual rights and personal finance since the industrial revolution...

Fair Market Value

There are probably many solvent entities out there who would claim users are already getting a return for the use of their data: free email and office docs from Google, free cloud services from Apple, etc. But I would imagine that there are massive margins being made on user data, and services (as valuable as they may be) are a paltry return for such a gold mine. I cannot help but be reminded of the selling price of Manhattan Island or Alaska (in 2011 values, the Lenape Indians got around $29.61/square mile; the Russians got about $150.77/square mile).

Money makes a good point, but personal data (and this post) isn't about the almighty coin. This is about clearly defining who owns what and ensuring that those who don't want to be taken advantage of, aren't. This is about identifying exploitation, and building something better and longer-lasting in its place.

"I cannot see consumers getting into the business of selling their data to marketers so they can see personalized advertising. Instead, I believe marketers will be encouraged to offer value to us in exchange for access to our data."

I have to agree with him... but I can only offer a qualified agreement. True, I find it hard to believe that users will be selling their data directly to marketers. From the user-side, the pain of inconvenience would not likely be worth the payoff; at the marketer end, individual data is useless, and munging an in-house-built collection would incur a lot of overhead not part of their core business.

However, users' data stored in lockers, updated regularly, pre-processed, has enormous value in the market. Right now, Apple and Google are making eye-crossing amounts of money from data just like this. Again, I would imagine that this data is only really valuable in large quantities and for interesting, identifiable demographics

If users provide their data, but in exchange only get a "nicer app" or a "useful utility" I'm going to cry "foul!" (unless someone can show me the actual numbers involved and unequivocally prove that fair exchange is occurring).

You Say Disruption, I Say Revolution

Instead, if a service such as Singly, were to offer a co-op style dividend payment system to all of its users, that would seem to be much more fair. Not only that, it would be the beginning of a market revolution. This is not to say that co-ops are some perfect economic model, but rather that the data we, as users, generate is of immense value. The more that Singly has, the greater potential for revenue. The more buzz that builds around Singly users generating revenue from their data, the more users they get. With mass-adoption, a new sub-economy is born.

Perhaps a better model than co-op is that of a mutual fund investment firm. Each Singly user has a portfolio of data. Depending upon each user's preferences, any or all of that data could be used by Singly to generate revenue. Some groups of users will generate more than others, and users in these groups would get greater returns.

Whichever analogy you prefer, with a little exploration it seems fairly clear that opportunities for a large payout are present. For instance, I like to imagine a world where entities like Apple and Google can't harvest user data, but must go through brokers whom users have given their permission to sell their data for the most profit. I also imagine there's a lot of lawmaking that would have to take place... and even more lobbying.

Even with that, Google and Apple would still make money hand over fist (or they'd become brokers themselves) -- enough to continue providing free services. Yet at the same time, users would be in control of their data; they'd be financing (or financially augmenting) their data-consumption lives with said data.

With the right press coverage, Singly could find themselves not only swamped with a massively growing user base, but at the very center of a new economy. With the right level of negotiation and coordination, businesses could buy into this new paradigm without losing their shirts in the disruption.

A Plea

In summary, I applaud the goals and vision of Singly. I, for one, would deeply appreciate writing applications against their data locker (to any Facebook or any of its dubious applications), where a user's rights are clear and protected. That being said, Sinlgy would have my eternal allegiance if they also took up the cause of rights for user data in the market place; if they helped transform the current nascent data economy into a world economy capable of achieving as-yet unimagined financial heights.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Since I first heard of them several years ago, I've viewed Packt as the underdog in the world of technical book publishing. In the past year or so, Packt seems to have gained greater and greater influence: their catalog continues to grow, they are attracting talented and knowledgeable engineers as authors, and their titles are things that I'm actually interested in.

In both cases, I agreed to work with Packt based solely on the technical merits of their works. However, my experience as a technical reviewer with them was so positive (I have had consistently excellent experiences with their staff over extended periods of time and on long-running conversations) that I have not only agreed to review more titles, but have read up on Packt themselves a bit. Here are some highlights from their wikipedia article:

They published their first book in 2004 (the same year Ubuntu started!).

Packt offers PDF versions of all of their books for download.

When a book written on an open source project is sold, Packt pays a royalty directly to that project.

As of March 2008, Packt's contributions to open source projects surpassed US $100,000 (I would love an updated stat on this, if anyone has a newer figure).

Their stream-lined business model aims to give authors high royalty rates and the opportunity to write on topics that standard publishers tend to avoid.

Bonus: they also run the Open Source Content Management System Award.

These guys have some keys things going for them:

They've got what appears to be a lean approach to business.

They know how to effectively crowd-source, keeping their overhead low.

They are rewarding both the authors as well as the open source projects.

Their titles continue to grow in diversity and depth.

The have an outstanding staff.

Oh, and I really like the user account management in their website! When I log in, I see a list of owned books, source code links for them, clear/clean UI, very easy to navigate. I can't emphasize this enough to vendors, service providers, etc.: if you want a loyal user base:

make a good product that lasts a long time;

make simple and great tools that enhance the experience of those products, that truly improve the experience of your users.

All in all, Packt really appear to be leaders in publishing innovation, taking lessons learned from the frontier of open source software and applying that to the older industry of publication production. I would encourage folks to evaluate Packt for themselves: if you like what you see, support them in readership and authorship :-)

I, for one, will continue to review titles that appeal to me personally and that I think others would enjoy as well. I have two books in the queue and three pending blog posts for the following titles:

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

I was supposed to write this blog post early yesterday morning, since the first results from community testing are going to be examined today... but we're still going to need on-going data. So not all is lost :-)

We're working very hard with chip vendors to make sure folks are getting the best experience possible running Unity in the forth-coming release of Ubuntu (Natty). Jean-Baptiste Lallement has posted to the QA mail list, asking for committed volunteers to test the nVidia drivers in Unity on a weekly basis. You can read his email here: